Coralia Cornejo v. Robert Wilkinson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2021
• Docket: 19-72929
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2021 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

CORALIA DEL CARMEN CORNEJO, No. 19-72929

Petitioner, Agency No. A216-166-778

v. ORDER ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

The memorandum disposition filed November 3, 2020 (Docket Entry

No. 34), is amended as follows:

1. On page 1, update caption: Replace “William P. Barr, Attorney General”

with “Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General”

2. On page 2, first paragraph, line 1: Remove “at least one basis for.”

Substantial evidence supports at least one basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

with

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

3. On page 2, first paragraph, second sentence: Remove second

parenthetical. See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that we must uphold an adverse credibility finding if substantial evidence supports even one ground relied upon).

See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019).

With the foregoing amendments to the memorandum disposition,

Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Docket Entry No. 35) is DENIED.

No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case.

2 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 3 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 26, 2020 Portland, Oregon

Coralia Del Carmen Cornejo petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See

Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019). Cornejo’s testimony was

inconsistent with declarations submitted by her mother and brother. See Kohli v.

Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that discrepancies

between petitioner’s testimony, declaration, and letter of membership substantially

supported an adverse credibility finding). The inconsistency is not trivial: whether

and when Cornejo and her mother fled their home relates directly to the threats by

gang members. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001)

(holding that inconsistencies relating to “the events leading up to [petitioner’s]

departure and the number of times he was arrested” substantiated an adverse

credibility determination), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). Absent credible

testimony, Cornejo’s asylum and withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We need not reach Cornejo’s other

arguments.

PETITION DENIED.